NobleHam:I've always found that when I'm mocked and not challenged it usually means I'm right.

If the idlers were still not satisfied, but continued to bait him, they would in the end come to blows. Then only after Ah Q had, to all appearances, been defeated, had his brownish pigtail pulled and his head bumped against the wall four or five times, would the idlers walk away, satisfied at having won. Ah Q would stand there for a second, thinking to himself, "It is as if I were beaten by my son. What is the world coming to nowadays. . . ." Thereupon he too would walk away, satisfied at having won.

I wish I could roll my eyes forcefully enough for you to sense it over the web.

I have a strong foundation in science. I think we have seriously farked over the planet, but I don't think is one of those ways. I am well-versed in both sides of the climate change argument. I have raised a number of points, none have been addressed. This isn't because of derision, it's because of a lack of ability. Perhaps I haven't presented enough data. Fair enough, it's 3 AM and I've been drinking, so I don't feel like writing an academic paper right this moment. Yet frankly, it's a bit more embarrassing that all you have is the old "you're unscientific and I'm not" dribble.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

NobleHam:zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?

zombiejesusnightmare:NobleHam: zombiejesusnightmare: NobleHam: log_jammin: NobleHam: even when that's not true.

that isn't a very scientific conclusion.

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?

Just a semantics argument, you can calm down with the strawmen. I was just saying that a statement of truth or falsehood is not scientific by nature, in reference to my own claim that something was false.

NobleHam:They are, however, limited to those conditions, and are contradictory to data we have on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures on other planets and moons related to corresponding levels of solar energy. Simply put, everywhere we look but here, CO2 is not that powerful of a greenhouse gas. So either there's a flaw in our data everywhere else, or there's a different source of warming here that is only related to CO2 levels by correlation.

You say a lot, but you don't back anything up with more than your opinion. What data from other planets would that be?

Science has its limits. When you can use science to establish truth, please let me know, if you're not too busy picking up your Nobel prize.

Jump. Notice how you fell back to earth? We know why. Science. Truth. Shut the fark up.

Do you? A caveman could have told you you would fall back to Earth if you jumped. Aristotle could have told you why, but he was wrong. Newton got a hell of a lot closer, but he was still wrong. Einstein improved on his theory, but he still wasn't quite "right." Now our best understanding of gravity is a hodgepodge of improvements on Einstein's theories, but all it takes is one more big leap to prove that wrong.

It's easy to say what will happen, but it's a lot harder to say "why," and science wouldn't really be science if one "why" could be claimed as absolute.

So because the scientific method has allowed us to get closer and closer to the truth of what is happening in the world around us, it is not to be trusted? Or something? What are you trying to say here?

Just a semantics argument, you can calm down with the strawmen. I was just saying that a statement of truth or falsehood is not scientific by nature, in reference to my own claim that something was false.

Ha ha ok. I see now. In case you forgot the subject we are interested in is anthropogenic climate change. The "truth" of which is well within the realm of science to make clear. Get that philosophy 101 crap outta here.

Which part of the warming is natural variation and which part is anthropogenic. Why do warmers assume anthropogenic causes when the climate has always changed? Why is this question met with such anger? Why is the science so weak that the proponents have no answer for the following question? How can they not know the proportions of natural and anthropogenic forcings?

Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.

stirfrybry:Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.

Why does it matter?

If climate change is just some sort of natural occurrence on the planet, society has to adapt. If climate change is cause by humanity, society still has to adapt. What's the major issue here?

wippit:stirfrybry:Please, some warmer here at fark, cite the facts for me. I've been looking for almost a decade for the info, but seems warmers never demand to know. they simply accept that anthropogenic forcing is causing the climate changes.

Why does it matter?

If climate change is just some sort of natural occurrence on the planet, society has to adapt. If climate change is cause by humanity, society still has to adapt. What's the major issue here?

This. If the only reason somebody can think of that modern men, who have been to the moon, shouldn't still be making their energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like f**king cavemen - that somebody is beyond the reach of any reasoned argument i could mount.

stirfrybry:Which part of the warming is natural variation and which part is anthropogenic

They take turns. Natural global warming increases the temperature by .01 degree, then anthropogenic by .01, then natural, etc. In order to know which is increasing the temperature more, you just have to know if the variation is even or odd. Natural warming is odd, anthropogenic even. Or maybe it's the other way around, I don't remember.

I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

NobleHam:Rather than asking questions and pointing out discrepancies they blindly accept data they don't understand and mock people who understand it better than they do simply because "the consensus" tells them they should.

If you can't answer a simple 201 level question accurately... why do you believe you understand it better than other people? The "consensus" you speak of is a scientific consensus. Meaning the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the data say it means X. This isn't because they want to believe that X is true, but because every time they work out the data, it keeps pointing to X. It is not out of ignorance that people mock those who examine the same evidence and keep ignoring whatever parts conflict with their narrative... it is because they deserve to be mocked for their willful ignorance of what is not only widely available data, but widely examined and verifiable data.

If you have a valid scientific examination that undermines the prevailing theories, present it. I'm sure the world can't wait for you to explain how smokestacks pouring out greenhouse gases at incredible rates have no effect at all on the atmosphere.

This argument is pointless. Your grandchildren will despise you for arguing to the point of inaction. The vast majority of activities that produce CO2 also produce a miriad of other environmental pollutants. Radioactive particles, toxic chemicals, heavy metals and imbalances of natural chemistry will make our decendants lives a struggle in every aspect. Regardless of whether it is warmer or not, they will curse our stupidity as they wonder what creatures that no longer exist were like, attempt to not die of cancer and other diseases, and have children free of abnormalities. We need to solve these problems regardless of cost, before we are purged from the environment like a virus that destroys it's host before it has somewhere else to go.

So here's the thing. Warmist alarmists would have you believe that while natural fluctuations do occur, they only manifest as while noise, which means an uncorrelated random offset in each time period (ie year, or month for example). From this it is easy to show that average offsets over longer time periods of say ten years will be lower (basically you divide by sqrt(n)). This enables them to state with confidence what the temperature will be in the future, and also to confidently conclude that fluctuations on a decadal scale could not possibly come from noise (the Weeners in the thread does this). Indeed, arguably, the entire "climatology is different from meteorology" argument is based on longer timescales giving higher certainty.

But take a look at the actual graphs. There is a certain familiarity to the kind of curve you see there. It looks like pink noise. Now, pink noise is noide that, unlike white noise, is biassed toward the low frequencies. We say pink noise has equal energy per octave (white noise has equal energy in equal sized frequency ranges). Pink noise therefore does not settle down over longer timescales. A fluctuation on the decade scale is equally likely as one on a years scale or a centuries scale. Pink noise is really common in nature because it is the kind of output you get from coupled chaotic systems.

Remember chaos theory? Suddenly noone wants to talk about it any more. I wonder why. Chaos theory shows how natural systems produce unpredictable behaviour. And the most common scenario in nature is to have multiple chaotic systems each drivin the other's control variable. Such systems have been shown to produce pink noise.

White noise is the only kind of noise with no self-correlation (all samples are independent). But since we know that nature has a memory - i.e. that certain variables take time to change - the white noise assumption is highly dubious. We cannot just assume it.

Basically, since white noise is an unjustified assumption, pink noise looks right from the plots, is common for this sort of natural system, and is actually predicted by chaos theory, I call BS to other commentors' silly attempts at statistical analysis with the white noise assumption sneakily inserted. The noise is pink, pink noise has these broad fluctuations all the time and there is nothing at all odd about being at a local bump on a decadal scale. It has happened before and will happen again.

wippit:I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

jack21221:wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

wippit:I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

Sort of... Not exactly. There was a 2 degree shift in the diurnal temperature range. Which is the difference between the high and the low:

"We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001," the researchers reported in today's (Aug. 8) issue of the journal Nature. "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails."(source)

I'd like to see that theory re-tested before I agree with their conclusion. They did note, "we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails", but how much, they really couldn't say. We would have to repeat the experiment a whole bunch of times to figure out if the theory is accurate or not. It might not be right at all. The contrails might have had nothing to do with the anomalies in the diurnal temps for those days. I highly doubt that they would stop all air traffic just to let us test that again though... So it's interesting, but not enough data to be conclusive.

GORDON:I see lots of words about how stupid some people are, but I see absolutely nothing to answer this one question.... who gives a shiat?

If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.

you are about as deep as tinfoil ain'tcha....

LOOK EVERYONE:

people wanna be obese at their children and grandchildrens future....they want to drive stupid trucks and have motorized everything because they deserve it after a hard day of making similar useless items with the equally useless people they work with..

let them have it until it's all gone.

then we can giggle a little when their kids get cancer or get run over by a giant hotwheels truck on the news...begging for money...etc etc

Kriggerel:What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.